Citation network
Oscar Mayer and Co. Vs. Evans
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 21, 1979
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
U.S. 750 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
U.S. 750 (1979) Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
discrimination, and thereby to make unnecessary resort to federal relief by victims of the discrimination. See Voutsis v. UnionSearch
-
in deferral States to resort to appropriate state proceedings before bringing suit under Title VII. See Love v. PullmanSearch
-
Olson v. RembrandtSearch
-
c). See Northcross v. MemphisSearch
-
United Airlines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Malotti v. FordSearch
-
b). See Nickel v. ShatterproofSearch
-
Magalotti v. FordSearch
-
c) of Title VII, which contains an identical definition of commencement. See Davis v. ValleySearch
-
Pinckney v. CountySearch
-
McAdams v. ThermalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
De Gideo v. Sperry-UnivacSearch
-
White v. DallasSearch
-
Ferguson v. KrogerSearch
-
to refer charge to state agency within state limitations period does not foreclose federal claim). But see Richardson v. MillerSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Love v. PullmanSearch
-
penalized if States decline, for whatever reason, to take advantage of these opportunities. See Pacific Maritime Assn. v. QuinnSearch
-
Congress did not intend to foreclose federal relief simply because state relief was also foreclosed. See Voutsis v. UnionSearch
-
by reference into the ADEA the various state age discrimination statutes of limitations. Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
d)(1). See De Gideo v. Sperry-UnivacSearch
-
avoiding burdensome case-by-case inquiry into the reasonableness of various state procedural requirements. Cf. NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
the federal court must, in any event, defer to the State for 60 days, and is required to defer no longer. See Davis v. ValleySearch
-
Nickel v. ShatterproofSearch
-
relief, such as the present case. Nothing in our decision in anywise disturbs the rule of Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
A number of cases have reached a similar result upon slightly different theories. See, e.g., Skoglund v. SingerSearch
-
Bertsch v. FordSearch
-
timely state complaint not required if state limitations period significantly shorter than 180 days). See also Vaughn v. ChryslerSearch
-
if claimant detrimentally relied upon mistaken official advice). Two cases have reached contrary results. See Graham v. ChryslerSearch
-
McGhee v. FordSearch
-
discrimination complaints are automatically referred to appropriate agencies as soon as they are received. See Love v. PullmanSearch
-
by tolling their statutes of limitations upon the filing of a timely charge with the Department of Labor. See Davis v. ValleySearch
-
Distributing Co. Cf. Burnett v. NewSearch
-
contacted the Department of Labor is a question of Iowa law, not for our decision. See Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. Massey-FergusonSearch
-
period). For this reason, suspension pending deferral is the preferred practice in the federal courts. See Crosslin v. MountainSearch
-
Gabriele v. ChryslerSearch
-
Oubichon v. NorthSearch
-
Parker v. GeneralSearch
-
Mitchell v. Mid-ContinentSearch
-
Motorola, Inc. v. EEOCSearch
-
Bertrand v. OrkinSearch
-
Winsey v. PaceSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
See Voutsis v. UnionSearch
-
Title VII. See Love v. PullmanSearch
-
See Northcross v. MemphisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial